You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Sander Temme <sc...@apache.org> on 2011/11/11 19:01:50 UTC
Re: svn commit: r1200993 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/docs/manual/platform: windows.html.en windows.xml windows.xml.ko
On Nov 11, 2011, at 9:48 AM, covener@apache.org wrote:
> - <li><code>INSTALLDIR</code> (default "ProgramFilesFolder\Apache Software Foundation\Apache2.2\")</li>
> + <li><code>INSTALLDIR</code> (default "ProgramFilesFolder\Apache Software Foundation\Apache2.3\")</li>
Shouldn't those things be something like '2.4' on the branch and '2.5' on trunk?
S.
--
sctemme@apache.org http://www.temme.net/sander/
PGP FP: FC5A 6FC6 2E25 2DFD 8007 EE23 9BB8 63B0 F51B B88A
View my availability: http://tungle.me/sctemme
Re: svn commit: r1200993 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/docs/manual/platform:
windows.html.en windows.xml windows.xml.ko
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 11/11/2011 12:43 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
> I think both sets of ap_release and version.ent should wait for a next
> roll on the respective tree to be changed -- thoughts?
No, the tree itself is at 2.4.0-dev (not released). So those files
can be changed now, no harm.
Re: svn commit: r1200993 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/docs/manual/platform:
windows.html.en windows.xml windows.xml.ko
Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.
I think both sets of ap_release and version.ent should wait for a next
roll on the respective tree to be changed -- thoughts?
Re: svn commit: r1200993 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/docs/manual/platform:
windows.html.en windows.xml windows.xml.ko
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 11/11/2011 12:01 PM, Sander Temme wrote:
>
> On Nov 11, 2011, at 9:48 AM, covener@apache.org wrote:
>
>> -<li><code>INSTALLDIR</code> (default "ProgramFilesFolder\Apache Software Foundation\Apache2.2\")</li>
>> +<li><code>INSTALLDIR</code> (default "ProgramFilesFolder\Apache Software Foundation\Apache2.3\")</li>
>
> Shouldn't those things be something like '2.4' on the branch and '2.5' on trunk?
Well, yes :) Time to update some other target defaults, too. Grepping
the two svn trees (including stale 2.0/2.2 refs) would probably be helpful.